Skip to content


Chidamabara Mudali and anr. Vs. Ramaswami Udayan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1895)5MLJ91
AppellantChidamabara Mudali and anr.
RespondentRamaswami Udayan
Excerpt:
- - i think the objection is well-founded. the order passed under section 40 of act ii of 1864 by the district munsiff directing that possession be given to the holder of the collector's certificate is clearly not a decree within the meaning of section 2 of the civil procedure code.order1. it is objected that no appeal lies in this case. i think the objection is well-founded. the order passed under section 40 of act ii of 1864 by the district munsiff directing that possession be given to the holder of the collector's certificate is clearly not a decree within the meaning of section 2 of the civil procedure code. no appeal or second appeallies against that order under the code. nor is any appeal given by the revenue recovery act. i must therefore reject the appeal on the preliminary ground taken for the respondent.2. the appellants will pay the respondent's costs.
Judgment:
ORDER

1. It is objected that no appeal lies in this case. I think the objection is well-founded. The order passed under Section 40 of Act II of 1864 by the District Munsiff directing that possession be given to the holder of the Collector's certificate is clearly not a decree within the meaning of Section 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. No appeal or second appeallies against that order under the Code. Nor is any appeal given by the Revenue Recovery Act. I must therefore reject the appeal on the preliminary ground taken for the respondent.

2. The appellants will pay the respondent's costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //